How Proteas got it wrong
De Villiers felt SA score was good enough, but side was poor in field
IT MADE not a bit of difference to AB de Villiers, nor the courageous group of players he led last night, that this World Cup semi-final was among the best games of cricket ever played. They lost.
Grant Elliott, on the flip-side of the result, gave a sweet answer about processes later, saying: “Things happen, you can’t be too results driven, it’s not just about winning there’s a lot of processes that work towards it.”
There are. However, this is a results business and the result here last night left the South African team shattered.
De Villiers was on the point of tears when he addressed the media. Faf du Plessis was shedding buckets on the field as Elliott began commiserating with Dale Steyn. Morne Morkel didn’t try to hide his emotions.
This defeat will hurt the South African players – for a very long time. They had fought like mad to give themselves the opportunity of playing in a first World Cup final.
Du Plessis absorbed everything that Tim Southee, Trent Boult and the rapid replacement Matt Henry could throw at him when he batted. He soaked up their best and then turned South Africa’s innings around, making New Zealand feel under pressure like they never had at the tournament before. Partnerships with Rilee Rossouw and De Villiers took South Africa to a hefty total.
But could it have been more? There’s a strong case that the calculations of Messrs Duckworth and Lewis didn’t give enough to South Africa after a near two-hour rain delay saw the match reduced to 43 overs a side.
“I suppose we are a little disappointed that we were only given 17 extra runs,” said the Proteas coach Russell Domingo. “(When SA played) against Pakistan, they were given 10 runs after being bowled out with four overs to spare. We just got six more than that. It’s quite an intricate way of working it out, we’d have thought that maybe we could have got a little bit more. We were banking on maybe getting 25, but that’s what was given to us and that’s the way it is.”
Elliott even seemed to agree. “That was a key moment – you don’t know what they would have scored. It was a very good batting wicket, they were set, they’d built the innings up nicely and it was a shame the weather actually had to intervene. But 298 was a tough score in just 43 overs. It’s a shame Duckworth/Lewis had to play a part.”
De Villiers wasn’t bothering with the intricacies of Duckworth/Lewis. To him, South Africa had enough on the board, the problem was that in building pressure, which they did brilliantly through Imran Tahir and just enough through the remaining bowlers, they then didn’t take advantage of the chances that resulted.
This was not as slick a fielding performance as the one produced last Wednesday against Sri Lanka and coupled with some silly errors with the ball – there were just far too many non-threatening short balls – it proved costly. Elliott had two let-offs – one a run out when Quinton de Kock didn’t collect a throw from Rossouw with Elliott on 65, the other a catch when Farhaan Behardien, a substitute fielder on for Vernon Philander, was put off by JP Duminy when Elliott had 75.
In match as close as last night’s, if those opportunities had been taken South Africa would have been strong favourites to win.
“We had our chances, especially in the second half of the game, and we didn’t take them,” said De Villiers. “I felt (the total) was enough and the chances we had in the second innings showed that it could have been enough.”
Coulda, shoulda, woulda – seems to be the story for South Africa at World Cups. Duckworth/Lewis certainly didn’t work for them yesterday, but then they didn’t execute to the standards they set for themselves with the ball and in the field.
And yet, South Africa still dragged the match to the final over – Elliot acknowledging that his side had erred in allowing that to happen.
De Villiers discussed his plans in that final over, in which New Zealand required 11, with his premier fast bowler. “We discussed every single ball; yorker, hard length, we were trying everything. Elliott was walking across the wicket trying to use the pace,” explained the South African captain.
“Normally when a player does that he wants to go for the yorker so he can use the pace (to glance the ball) down to the bound- ary. We decided to go length hoping he’d play and miss at it and he played one of the best shots of his life, probably the best.”
How did Elliott view that last hit? “It’s the first moment you feel a release of emotion. Cricket is a sort of game where you have to be unemotional in your approach. It was a great feeling to look at the team and the crowd and savour that moment and realise that we are through to the final.” It was a magnificent game, but De Villiers couldn’t see that. Asked if it was the worst he’d felt after a match, De Villiers replied: “Yes”.
WE HAD OUR CHANCES... IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE GAME. WE DIDN’T TAKE THEM. I FELT THE TOTAL WAS ENOUGH